When people talk about building power, the focus is often on scale: big campaigns; big budgets; big organisations.
But at Changing hearts and minds: People, power and persuasion on Wednesday 10 June, James Grimes from Gambling with Lives offered a different perspective. James explained that some of the most significant change comes from people directly affected by harm organising, speaking out and refusing to be ignored.
Gambling with Lives was founded by Charles and Liz Ritchie after the death of their son Jack, who took his own life aged 24 as a result of a gambling disorder.
Since then, Gambling with Lives has become one of the most influential voices calling for reform of the gambling industry. Alongside supporting bereaved families, it has helped drive changes in policy, public understanding and approaches to suicide prevention.
The journey has not come easy. As James described, it has meant taking on an industry worth billions, with deep reach across politics, sport and media, and one that has not hesitated to push back aggressively.
So, what can communicators learn from their experience?
#1: Lived experience is not an input, it is the driver of change
A defining feature of Gambling with Lives is that it is led by people directly affected by gambling-related harm and bereavement. Their insight is not something that is consulted occasionally or added to strengthen the work. It shapes the work.
Families have played a central role in setting priorities and challenging assumptions. Through direct engagement with politicians, regulators and the media, they have helped to reframe gambling as a systemic issue.
Too often, lived experience is handled cautiously or sidelined altogether, particularly when people are seen as vulnerable. In practice this can strip people of agency at the point where it matters most.
Gambling with Lives shows a different approach. One where families are supported to speak for themselves, on their own terms, and to influence decisions that affect them. That is where their power lies.
#2: Change starts with reframing the problem
James explained that for years, gambling harm has been framed as the result of personal weakness or a lack of self-control.
Gambling with Lives has challenged that framing, by placing the focus on how products are designed, how gambling is marketed and where responsibility sits within the system. Gambling with Lives explained that gambling products are deliberately designed to cause addiction and that they behave in the way they are designed to do. They are pushed to consumers using predatory marketing tactics.
This shift is fundamental. When gambling harm is understood as an individual issue, the response centres on education and behavioural change. When it is recognised as a public health issue, the focus moves to regulation, prevention and accountability.
James explained that this is not unique to gambling. Across issues like poverty, housing, health and climate, the way a problem is described shapes the solutions that are considered acceptable or necessary. Communicators have a critical role in that framing and in challenging narratives that obscure responsibility.
#3 Don’t underestimate the value of simply showing up
James reflected on some of the most effective advocacy Gambling with Lives has undertaken. He highlighted that it has been remarkably straightforward: meeting with decision-makers, be that at community events, parliamentary meetings and continuing to make the case directly.
Showing up consistently and speaking plainly about what families have experienced has built credibility and influence over time, and has often been more effective than more distant or transactional forms of engagement.
Not all influence comes from large, highly produced approaches to work. Much of it comes from sustained, visible presence that is difficult to dismiss.
James’ session demonstrates that power does not always sit where you expect it to. Bereaved families, organising together, have helped shift national conversation, challenge a powerful and well-resourced industry and secure meaningful reform.
For those working in communications, the lesson is clear. This is not just about raising awareness. It is about changing how problems are understood, where responsibility is placed and who gets to shape the response.
As James put it, the establishment can feel overwhelmingly powerful at times. But change is possible. And crucially, it is about ensuring that those most affected are not spoken for – but are able to lead.
